The Paul Ryan Budget defenders have today’s talking point that Democrats are “scaring seniors” about Medicare and Medicaid changes, and that seniors don’t have to think about opposing the Ryan plan because only those under 55 are affected.

Oh really?

The Pew Research Center reported last fall that these days, one in ten children live with a grandparent. This number is up considerably since the start of the recession. At least 50% of grandparents have been a caregiver to a grandchild in the past year.

For the most part, grandparent caregivers have very limited financial resources. Nearly one-in-five (18%) are living below the poverty line, while 47% have household incomes that fall between one- and three-times the poverty line. In comparison, among the population ages 50 and older, 8% are below the poverty line, and 32% are living on an income that is between one- and three-times the poverty rate.

It’s very difficult to find national numbers for Medicaid, but this pdf report shows 30.3% of children nationwide were covered by Medicaid/CHIP, and 10.2 percent of children were uninsured. Grandparents raising grandchildren DEPEND on health care programs for younger people, to insure their families.

Pitting one generation against another, in an effort to gut Medicare and Medicaid, is guaranteed to fail. Contrary to what Randite Republicans preach, we live in a society that is inter-dependent, one generation on the other. Grandmas across the country have plenty reason to tell the Republican Party, “don’t pull the plug on my grandchildren.”

18 Responses to Senior Citizens, This is Your America on GOP| Still Want to Continue With This Prescription?

Today is “Tax Day,” the normal filing date for federal income tax returns for millions of Americans who do their patriotic duty and ensure that, to paraphrase Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., we live “in a civilized society.”

Yet while ordinary, Main Street Americans sacrifice for their country by paying taxes, a whole host of big corporations are getting away with paying little to nothing in federal corporate income taxes — exploiting loopholes in the tax code to avoid their tax responsibilities. From Bank of America to ExxonMobil to General Electric, these big businesses have gone quarters or entire years without paying their income taxes — at a time when the effective tax rate on a median family is 13.6 percent.

This isn’t the first time Americans have had to deal with a tax code that lets the nation’s richest firms get away with shirking their tax responsibilities. In the middle of his presidency, then-president Ronald Reagan learned that a number of big corporations, including his former employer, General Electric, were completely escaping paying federal corporate income taxes. “I didn’t realize things had gotten that far out of line,” Reagan told his Treasury secretary, Donald T. Regan, according to his 1988 memoir.

So Reagan undertook a comprehensive tax reform effort that actually raised the corporate taxes and closed numerous loopholes that allowed big firms to dodge their tax responsibilities. As part of these reforms, Reagan passed the 1986 Tax Reform Act. This law “raised corporate taxes by $120 billion over five years and closed corporate tax loopholes worth about $300 billion over that same period.”

During the signing ceremony for the speech, Reagan explained that his goal in pursuing these reforms was to make sure “that everybody and every corporation pay their fair share”:

REAGAN: We’re going to make it economical to raise children again. Flatter rates will mean more reward for that extra effort, and vanishing loopholes and a minimum tax will mean that everybody and every corporation pay their fair share.

Unfortunately, the modern tax code is still riddled with loopholes and exemptions that allow big corporations to get away with paying little to nothing in federal corporate income taxes. When asked about this tax dodging, leading members of Reagan’s party have shown nowhere near the Gipper’s motivations to crack down on corporate America. Potential GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich said we should “celebrate” corporate tax dodgers, and Tim Pawlenty responded to a question about Bank of America paying nothing in federal income taxes by saying “taxes are too high.”

And this bish said “I don’t think THEY understand what’s going on, they don’t understand what the government is trying to do for them.” OH REALLY, assclown. I think the senior citizens KNOW exactly what’s going on. You and your greasy, greedy, GOP ilk count on folks not knowing what’s going on.

We need to rally our senior citizens together and give these mofos a righteous smackdown for their fuckery.

For most advanced countries, health care is treated as a societal covenant in which all citizens have coverage for treatment of sickness, pain and disability.

America has never made that universal covenant. But when the Medicare and Medicaid programs were enacted in the 1960s, our country did make an important promise: basic health security for seniors, people with disabilities, and children living in poverty.

Now, Rep. Paul Ryan and the leaders of the U. S. House of Representatives have put forward a proposal that would break that promise.

Ryan’s new budget plan would deliberately erode the share of Medicaid and Medicare expenses the federal government will pay. That will unquestionably lead to loss of health care coverage, access and benefits for millions of Americans.

The House plan is wrapped in rhetoric about fiscal responsibility and reducing the deficit. But it has no credibility on that claim. The plan contains deficit-worsening measures including huge new tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and for corporations and repeal of the Affordable Care Act, which independent analysis has shown reduces the deficit in coming years.

The plan redistributes wealth to the top and embodies an ideology that says government has little responsibility to provide for the common good and secure a basic standard of living for all.

But those justifications are a hard sale, so Ryan and allies are trying to hitch their proposals to real economic challenges related to rising health care costs and eroding middle class economic security.

But the real challenge the country faces in regard to rising health care costs is not caused by Medicare and Medicaid.

Those programs are far more efficient than private health insurance. Medicaid costs less than private insurance once you adjust for health status–27 percent less for children and 20 percent less for adults. Medicare and Medicaid costs per beneficiary have been growing slower than private insurance.

Instead, unsustainable cost growth is about the entire health care system. We don’t spend enough to prevent health care problems or treat them early on, so we end up spending more later. We allow incentives for overutilization of expensive medical technologies without understanding their effectiveness. We don’t do enough to stand up to powerful corporate interests in the insurance, pharmaceutical and other health care industries.

The proposals in Ryan’s plan would limit the federal government’s contribution to Medicare and Medicaid to less than the cost of care in coming years. That will mean a big shift in costs either to states (in the case of Medicaid) or, more likely, to the elderly, poor and disabled. That will take the form of higher premiums and co-pays, reduced benefits, cuts in eligibility, and reductions in provider payments—a formula for greater financial strain on families and lower access to needed care.

Congressional Budget Office analysis shows that in 2022 a typical 65 year-old would pay twice as much out of pocket for Medicare under Ryan’s plan than without it.

Medicaid and Medicare are essential to health security in Kentucky, and will become even more important. The Affordable Care Act that Ryan proposes to repeal is scheduled to fill the hole in coverage for 261,000 uninsured Kentuckians through Medicaid. The share of the population over 65 in Kentucky, who benefit not just from Medicare but also Medicaid’s support for nursing homes, will grow from 13 percent now to 20 percent by 2030.

In another health care struggle of a different time, President Harry Truman lamented that “millions of our citizens do not now have a full measure of opportunity to achieve and to enjoy good health. Millions do not now have protection or security against the economic effects of sickness. And the time has now arrived for action to help them attain that opportunity and to help them get that protection.”

Truman couldn’t achieve that goal, but he was on hand two decades later when President Lyndon Johnson signed the legislation creating Medicare and Medicaid.

Plans like Ryan’s call the future of that 45 year-old achievement into question.

Jason Bailey is Director of the Kentucky Center for Economic Policy (KCEP). KCEP is on the web at http://www.kypolicy.org.

A Medicare overhaul is back on the table, and many of the Americans whose benefits would take the biggest hit are not surprised.

The House is expected to vote on a budget proposal by Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., this week that could lead to the end of Medicare as we know it for Americans who are 54 or younger. Instead, the government would pay a subsidy retirees could use to buy private health insurance.

Brooke Unversaw, 37, didn’t know the specifics of the proposal from House Budget Committee Chairman Ryan, but over the years she came to expect Congress would cut her benefits.

“There’s no more free ride or looking forward to 65,” said the Greenacres mother. “I feel like you have to work until you’re 80.”

And yet Unversaw didn’t necessarily object to the plan.

“Health care is so out of control. We pay so much now that it really wouldn’t make a difference if we had to pay more for it,” she said.

Republicans, who crafted the plan, say it’s a way to save Medicare from insolvency. Democrats accuse the GOP of protecting big corporations while balancing the deficit on the backs of younger Americans.

“This proposal would be a fundamental change to the Medicare program,” said Tricia Neuman, vice president and director of the Medicare Policy Project at the Kaiser Family Foundation. “It would constrain the growth in federal Medicare spending, but also shift costs onto seniors who may have difficulty affording the significant increase in costs.”

Seniors now receiving Medicare benefits would be immune to most of the changes. They are a powerful and engaged voting block. By sparing them cuts, politicians are concentrating on a segment of Americans who already expect government benefits will be less generous in their retirement than seniors today receive.

The 2011 Retirement Confidence Survey found that 88 percent of workers are concerned that Medicare benefits will be reduced by the time they retire. Just 5 percent said they are very confident that the Medicare system will continue to provide benefits of at least equal value to the benefits received by retirees today.

“Our health care system doesn’t work now, I’ll acknowledge,” said Byron Jefferson, an ad salesman who lives in West Palm Beach. “But to think you can scrap it and go to a private system is ludicrous.”

In studying the plan, the Congressional Budget Office came to a similar conclusion.

Under Ryan’s plan, health care costs per American actually go up – not down. But instead the individual and not the government is responsible for most of the bill.

A Medicare beneficiary in 2022 would receive $8,000 from the government and pay another $12,500 out-of-pocket. If Medicare were to function unchanged, the government would pay about $7,900 and the typical beneficiary would owe another $5,630 in out-of-pocket expenses, the CBO said.

Health care would cost $20,500 per American under Ryan’s proposal and $13,530 under the current government model, according to the CBO. The difference is due to several factors including that private providers tend to have higher administrative costs and pay higher fees to providers.

Peter Lyons of North Palm Beach, 42, said he supported a more comprehensive overhaul of Medicare that would include removing incentives for doctors to order unnecessary test and procedures. But a good first step is putting some responsibility in the hands of beneficiaries, he said.

“If people have more control, if they see costs associated with Medicare, then they will be more likely to help control costs,” he said. “As long as somebody else pays for it and you never see the costs, there’s no incentive to say maybe I don’t need that test.”

Montana’s senior U.S. Senator Max Baucus blasted the U.S. House of Representatives vote Friday to end Medicare for Montana seniors and military retirees.

“I won’t stand by and let the House end Medicare and hand our seniors’ and retired military service members health over to private insurance companies. Our parents, grandparents, and military retirees worked hard all their lives to care for us, and they paid into Medicare to take care of them when they need it most,” said Baucus, chair of the Senate Finance committee, which oversees the Medicare program. “We need to reduce our debt by attacking Medicare fraud and cutting insurance profits – not by cutting benefits and shifting costs onto seniors like the House plan does. The House plan means fewer benefits for seniors and military retirees and higher profits for insurance company CEOs. It’s wrong, and it won’t happen. Not on my watch.”

Today, the promise of Medicare guarantees the 167,000 Montana seniors and 30,000 Montana military retirees will always receive coverage for doctors, hospitals, treatments, surgeries and medicines they need. And Medicare gives seniors the security of low cost deductibles and co-pays, for their coverage. The plan the House passed would cut more than $2 trillion in health care benefits, forcing seniors to double what they pay now for care.

Baucus has worked to reduce the deficit and prolong the life of Medicare by cutting inflated insurance company profits without cutting any guaranteed benefits for seniors. The House plan does the opposite by cutting seniors’ benefits and giving Medicare dollars to private insurance companies to pay for CEO salaries, profits and advertising.

The House plan would end Medicare by converting it into a “voucher-like” program that gives money for seniors’ health care directly to private insurance companies. Under this plan, seniors would have to wade through paperwork and fine print to find a private plan that covers their medical needs. Still, unlike under Medicare, that plan wouldn’t guarantee coverage for unforeseen medical conditions seniors could face. If seniors were faced with a condition not covered by their private plan, they would have to pay 100 percent of the cost out of their own pockets. To get coverage equal to the benefits Medicare offers today, seniors would have to pay thousands of dollars more.

Under the House plan, private insurance companies could be allowed to discriminate against seniors with pre-existing medical conditions such as high-blood pressure and diabetes. Insurance companies could charge more for seniors as they grow older and if they develop expensive conditions, including cancer.

As part of the Affordable Care Act, Baucus worked to reduce the debt and strengthen Medicare by cutting huge overpayments to private insurance companies that were threatening Medicare’s future. According to Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) data, since the passage of the Affordable Care Act, Medicare Advantage premiums are down by six percent and enrollment in Medicare Advantage is up six percent. At the same time, the CMS Independent Actuary confirms the law prolonged the life of Medicare by at least 12 additional years. The law does so while also providing new benefits for seniors and prohibiting insurers from cutting any Medicare benefits seniors are entitled to under the law.

Black Girls Rock!

Flickr Photos

Potus Takes Oath of Office

Flotus & Daughters at Great Wall of China

My Brothers Keeper

AFRO PUFFS

Most Adorable Shoe Stealer

Six Little Babies

Fatherhood

Even though 3Chics Politico is written and curated by three women: Ametia, Rikyrah, and SouthernGirl2, I must nominate this as one of the most engaging blogs I've found. Devoted to politics and culture, these three shine a light on contemporary life with humor and spirit.